Actually, thinking on this more -- the lack of consensus is on the attempt to re-add the patch, so I guess we'd handle that just like we do for a contentious patch now.
Michael On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Michael Still <mi...@stillhq.com> wrote: > This looks reasonable to me, with a slight concern that I don't know > what step five looks like... What if we can never reach a consensus on > an issue? > > Michael > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Mark McLoughlin <mar...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Hey >> >> (Terrible name for a policy, I know) >> >> From the version_cap saga here: >> >> https://review.openstack.org/110754 >> >> I think we need a better understanding of how to approach situations >> like this. >> >> Here's my attempt at documenting what I think we're expecting the >> procedure to be: >> >> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nova-retrospective-veto-revert-policy >> >> If it sounds reasonably sane, I can propose its addition to the >> "Development policies" doc. >> >> Mark. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > -- > Rackspace Australia -- Rackspace Australia _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev